Planet of the Apes and Its Implications.
Planet of the Apes has always been one of my favorite films. I loved
it as a kid though the first viewing freaked me out; I had screaming
fits and turned it off after the first 30 min–I must have been 5 yrs
old. So, I really saw the entire film when I was around nine. I loved
every minute of it, and I like it even today. Of course, reasons for
liking it changed over time.
I saw Planet of the Apes again some months ago and couldn’t help
noticing certain parallels with the 10 Commandments, not least because Charlton Heston played both Moses and Taylor. I’m not sure if the
makers of POTA consciously thought of 10 Commandments, but the two
films make for interesting comparisons. Both are stories of alien
minorities, oppression, liberation, and uncertainty. But, if Ten
Commandments reflected the moral certitudes of the Cold War 50s, POTA reflects the anarchic skepticism of the late 60s. Moses leads his
people out of bondage to an uncertain but promised land. There will be
many obstacles and tragedies, but God is on their side. Taylor flees
Apeland toward freedom, but he’s practically alone, with only a horse
and mute bimbo. He rides toward the future only to re-discover
humanity as a past-tense. Triumphant miracles aid the Hebrews on
their path to freedom; tragic catastrophe awaits Taylor on his
journey. Moses condemns the Golden Calf worshipers and saves the good
members of his flock. Taylor condemns all of mankind, but deep down
realizes and knows that he too is part of cursed humanity.
Another movie that comes to mind in relation to POTA is Bridge on the
River Kwai, hardly surprising since both stories were written by the
French author Pierre Boulle. I haven’t read Bridge on the River Kwai
and don’t know what changes were made for David Lean’s film, but both stories share common themes. When the books were written, France still
had an empire stretching all over Asia and Africa. For a couple of
centuries, the French, along with the British, assumed that the
dominance of white man would practically be permanent. The West was
great and powerful; white man was advanced and well-organized. Whether
one called it the white man’s burden or white man’s destiny, it seemed like the world was meant to be ruled by white people.
The first crack in this assumption happened with the rapid rise of
Japan. An isolated feudal-state, Japan catapulted to world power
status in a few decades after its gates were crashed open by Brits and Americans. In 1905, the Japanese, deemed a newcomer to world power
politics, defeated the Russian Bear. Japanese power grew in Asia to
the point where it became the premier imperialist player in northern
China. But, that was not enough for Japan. Japan wanted dominance over
all of Asia. This brought Japan face to face with European powers in Southeast Asia. Japan’s victory over British, French, and Dutch forces
in Southeast Asia was shocking to both Westerners and Asians. It was
as if the world was turned upside down. This was something new. Yes,
Japan had defeated Russia in 1905 but that didn’t lead to rule over
white folks. Yes, Japan had competed with Western powers in China and elsewhere, but Japan didn’t gain dominance over white-ruled areas.
This all changed in 1941 when Japan charged into Western Imperialist
holdings in Asia. This was all the more shocking because Japanese
victory was so swift and resounding. There were deeper implications in
this victory for all Asians–most living under colonialism–could now
see that white folks could be defeated by non-whites. Though most
Asians resented and hated Japanese imperialism–even more than Western Imperialism–, Japan’s victory inspired anti-Western-Imperialist movements(both Rightist and Leftist)all over Asia, Middle East, and elsewhere.
Of course, Japan was finally defeated by white powers. US smashed
Japan in the seas and from the sky. Russians charged into northern
China and totally whupped Japanese ass. But, the West–especially Europe–never recovered from the shock of defeat at the hands of Japan
in Southeast Asia. (And, Russians later came to fear the 800 million
Chinese communists that turned into enemies.) Indeed, when the
Europeans returned to take control of Southeast Asia, it was
hopeless. Even Southeast Asians who hated the Japanese took
inspiration from the Japanese example and fought against the re-
imposition of Western imperialism. Dutch had to abandon Indonesia.
French gave up Indochina. British realized its days were numbered in Malaysia. Americans, though not an imperialist power, inherited the
French mess, tried to make the best of it(create an anti-communist
South Vietnam), but was eventually pushed out by crazed communist
Vietnamese in the North.
Of course, victory over the white race by non-whites is nothing new if
we look at all of history. The ancient Huns whupped the Europeans over
a long period. The Mongol armies reached as far as Paris at one time,
and the heirs of the great Khans ruled over Russia for centuries.
But, since the time of Western advances in science, technology, and
industry, it seemed to Western Europeans and Americans that there was
nothing to turn the tide of history; white folks would rule and rule
for good. Of course, many white folks saw this as a good thing since
they were supposedly good Christians bringing the light of progress to
all those crazy, backward, poor, and benighted darkies. There was some
truth to this as much of the world was ruled by oppressive tyrants or systems, steeped in superstition and idiotic customs, and such. The
concept of universal human rights, modern medicine, democracy, and
other good stuff all originated and came from the West. The West ended slavery all over the world. Japan and Turkey gained much by opening up
to Western powers(or being forcibly opened up by them). But, there was
also an element of arrogance and high-falutin-ness on the part of many Westerners. Some white folks just couldn’t resist going around
calling colored folks ‘niggers’, ‘ragheads’, ‘dotheads’, ‘chinks’,
‘injuns’, and the like. And, many white folks came to rest on their laurels. And, there was also an assumption among non-whites(who were
steeped in superstitious thinking)that white folks were god-like, all- powerful, invincible, magical, and such. This was one of the reason
why small numbers of white folks could rule over so many darkie folks.
After shooting a bunch of people with their terrifyingly loud guns
and cannons, the locals and natives thought white man was not to mess
around with but to respect and worship. (Darkies had a might-is-right
moral system and willingly submitted to white power... before the
concept of Western universal human rights influenced the minds of European-educated darkie elites and intellectuals.) Also, many
natives didn’t mind having white folks rule over them in many cases
because whites were, in many cases, preferable to the far crueler and
more exploitative local chieftains. But, once the magic of white invincibility wore off, white folks were in deep doo doo all over
Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The world was turning upside down. The
white man was forced to consider a scenario that had seemed utterly
ludicrous in the past: the idea that non-whites would gain dominance
over the whites.
In the novel of POTA, two space apes come upon a message written by a human(which forms the bulk of the story). Never mind the story
itself; the space apes are besides themselves in laughter over the
notion of a human being able to write anything, let alone a long
complex story such as the one they came upon; they finally conclude it
must some practical joke written by a clever ape. Similarly, the idea
of Western dominance crumbling overnight and non-white rising in the
world have seemed pretty outlandish to most white folks prior to the
end of WWII. There is some of this feeling even today as much of the non-white world is still pretty backward and depressing. Africa is
worse off now than during the Age of Imperialism. Much of the Middle
East is pitiful and piss poor. Latin America, where most people are non-white, is still mired in poverty. Though Latin American whites are
losing power in relative terms, there’s no indication that Latin
America will be world-leaders in the 21st century.
But, Asia is another story. In the latter half of the 20th century,
the rise of Asia meant Japan and the so-called tigers(S. Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc). As impressive as this has been,
those nations could pose no real threat to the Western dominated world order(though there was much anxiety over Japan). For starters, most of
them were military colonial posts for American power. But, China and
India, politically and militarily sovereign powers, entered the
picture in a major way since the 1990s, and these two giants(with
combined population of 2.3 billion) are making a real difference in
the world. Personally, I think the Indians are too messy and divisive
and the Chinese are too unoriginal and corrupt to become dominant
world players, but the future is always uncertain.
Anyway, China and India have many people worried. Russians are worried
that they may lose Siberia to the Chinese who are entering legally and illegally in huge numbers to cut down trees and work in(and take over) various industries. The biggest problem for the West is not so much
the rise of the non-West but the legal and illegal massive entry of
non-white folks into EU and US. For EU, Muslims pose a cultural
threat while black Africans pose a physical threat. US, already in big trouble with its 40 million blacks, is being invaded by more and more
illegal poor Mexicans who want to reconquer the entire SW territory.
Also, the arrival of more immigrants from Africa, Carribean, and other
places means more crazy blacks in America to mess things up. Non-
white folks have little chance of taking control of the brain centers
of the Western World as they don’t happen to be the brightest nor economically most successful people. But, neither are the brain
centers in white hands due to the fact that Jews are smarter than (gentile)white folks. So, rich and intellectual Jews have gained
control of the brain centers of the West. Even goy whites come under
the influence of these Jews–Karl Max, Eric Hobsbawm, Noam Chomsky,
Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman. Right or
Left, the Jew is out to destroy white power. Whether it’s diversity- obsessed multi-culturalist collectivism or individual-obsessed libertarianism, Jewish influence wages war on the concept of white
identity, white unity, white pride, and white survival.
Anyway, the world appeared to be turning upside down in the mid
century of the 20th century. Europeans, who had enjoyed dominance
around the world for a couple of centuries, not only seemed to be
losing their empire but in the process of being taken over by the
barbarians or alien civilizations(or ideologies). Japan posed the
first real threat but was soundly defeated by 1945. But, the Third
World was rumbling. Chinese communists triumphed by 1949. Communism
was a special case because it was both European and anti-Western. It
was essentially a radical Jewish ideology that had taken hold of
Russians, whose European-ness(cultural or racial) was doubted by many
in the West and even by Russians themselves(as many Russians took national/cultural pride in their distinctness). In time, a major
branch of communism came to be associated with the Third World, as an empowering ideology and weapon of non-white folks. Communism inspired
Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, Arabs, etc. Many feared that
communism would sweep across the world, one of the reasons why the
Vietnam War was deemed crucial to both US and the communist bloc. Both
sides saw it as the crucial piece of domino. When US pulled out of
Vietnam, many people in the West were convinced that other dominoes
would fall... and people in China and Russia were eagerly rubbing
their hands in glee at the prospect of world revolution. Of course, it didn’t happen that way which goes to show how worthless and unpopular communism is in the long run.
Anyway, it wasn’t just the rise of USSR, Red China, and communist
movements which upset Western European assumptions of the dominance of
the White Man. It was also the rise of the Americans(despite America’s status as a Western power). This may seem strange given the fact that
the majority of Americans have always been white. Even so, Europeans
saw American culture, manners, assumptions, values, and ideology as a
threat to the European World Order. America was seen as an upstart
nation, a culture-less civilization, society lacking in soul and
manners, and such. Americans were seen as immature barbarians. Many
Europeans saw America as the continent where all their undesirables
emigrated to(though, to be sure, many Europeans had great admiration
for America as well); in contrast, of course, and despite what Emma
Lazarus wrote, Americans saw themselves as people with enough brains
to have left the stinking Old World. At any rate, even though America
had, by the end of WWI, become the mightiest nation on Earth, most
Europeans held onto the view that they, not Americans, were the true
masters of the world, with Brits and French leading the way. Of
course, Germans were pissed at the notion of being left out of the
world order. Regarding themselves as a great people, Germans wondered
why they had to be hemmed in by the British Navy and by the armies of
France and Russia. In a way, the rise of Fascism and Nazism are
strange developments in Europe for both were, at once, as European as
red wine and as alien as a Martian’s teat. On the one hand, Fascism
and National Socialism claimed to protect and preserve the best of
Europe; on the other hand, they were radical futurist ideologies which
aimed to replace the genteel bourgeois order with a militant
corporatist order. It was almost as if Europe had to be radically
altered to be saved; it had to lose itself to find itself.
So, Bridge on the River Kwai has multiple meanings and implications.
It can be read as white vs yellow, Anglo vs. America, traditionalism
vs fascism, upper class vs. lower class, idealism vs humanism, etc.
There are many levels of hierarchy, varying degrees of opposing
dynamics. William Holden is the practical and individualistic
American who wants to look out for #1, himself. Yet, as he becomes
involved in the mission, he gradually becomes more heroic and self- sacrificing than others. The Japanese are the new overlords, but their authority–regarding both natives and white prisoners–is unceertain. Anglos are there to help the natives overthrow the Japanese occupiers,
but Anglos themselves are imperialists. Though Holden is supposedly a
member of a civilization that safeguards freedom and liberty(The
West), he is deviously coerced to join the mission. The most complex
figure in the movie is, of course, Alec Guinness’s character. He’s an
odd blend of heroism, toughness, patriotic duty, and honor... which perversely and unwittingly turns him into the biggest fool in the
movie. He’s the best and the worst. He cares about his men, his
national honor, and such and such. But, he becomes so wrapped up in
ideals and high falutin notions and rationalizations that he fails to
see his betrayal.
In a way, the Guinness character stands for the hubris of virtue,
honor, and noble cause. People built empires with big ideas about
spreading civilization and the true faith. Communists killed millions
in the name of progress. So in love with the Idea of Progress, they
became blind to of millions of victims. Hitler thought he would save
Western Civilization, yet his obsession with the highest achievements
of the West led him to commit horrible acts. We can go on and on.
Man is a beast without ideas and ideals, without virtues such as
honor, nobility, heroism, and dignity. But, such ideas and values can
also make man intolerant of peoples and things that fall short of the
higher or nobler ideals; man can be barbaric in the fight against barbarism–even true of Allies in WWII with the firebombing of Dresden
and Tokyo. To be sure, context does matter. The bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, though horrible, were still different than Nazi killing
of the Jews. In actual deed, both involved mass slaughter, but
Americans wanted to end the war and bring freedom to the Japanese
while the Nazis wanted to kill most Jews. Though it makes hypocrites
out of all of us, context and agenda do matter. For this reason, Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai is not an evil nor treacherous
man; he’s a man whose best qualities oddly enough lead him to the
worst judgment of his life. If he has one major failing, it is hubris
and class snobbery which leads him to think he knows what’s best for
his men and that’s that(and most of his men go along because they too
were raised in a class-based society where blokes are supposed to do
as the gentleman says; in this regard, William Holden is a bigger
threat to Alec Guinness(European values) in some way than the Japanese
are. Japanese may challenge the British Empire, but both civilizations believe in hierarchy and form(and proper place for each individual).
William Holden represents the free, self-centered, and self-willed individual; he’s like the Charlton Heston character in POTA.
Anyway, let’s discuss POTA, its meaning, and its significance. In retrospect, it seems less impressive today as we’ve been bombarded
with out-of-this-world special effects and CGI for the past 30 yrs.
Film tricks and techniques have advanced far beyond anything even
dreamt possible back in 1968. But, this doesn’t necessarily make POTA worse; the original POTA relied more on story, character, and script
than most of today’s sci-fi or action movies which are all about
speed, explosions, and such.
And, there was a certain advantage in the fact that the director
Franklin Schaffner was a workman-like director than an auteur. While I
have no doubt that Orson Welles or Stanley Kubrick could have made a
more interesting version of POTA, an unpretentious skilled director is preferable to some pain-in-the-ass auteur wanna-be who turns promising material into self-deluded aesthetic gimcrackery–just think of the
crimes of Ken Russell or Tim Burton. Schaffner did no more and no less
than what he was hired to do. POTA is not great filmmaking but is
solid filmmaking. And, because Schaffner’s directorship doesn’t
intrude upon other aspects of the movie and hog all the attention, we
can enjoy all of POTA’s parts.
POTA is less sci-fi than satire. Though a film can have trappings of
both satire and sci-fi, there’s a key difference. Satire uses
technological or scientific themes to make a point about humanity
whereas conventional science fiction is primarily interested in the speculative technology itself. Considered from a scientific angle,
POTA makes no sense and has no plausibility whatsoever. But, it works wonderfully as satire, as a consideration of our world through a
warped looking glass. POTA is, after all, not about the future or the dangers/promises of science/technology but about us here and now. It
should be regarded as something like Animal Farm, and indeed could
well have been called Ape House. The pigs in Orwell’s story
represented communists in the Soviet Union, and the apes in POTA are
us today(or at least in the 60s). So, people who complain about POTA’s
bad science are nincompoops.
So, what does POTA say about us, humanity, or whatever? First, we have
to distinguish the book from the novel. The original novel was in
French and the iconic image at the end of the film is not the Statue
of Liberty but the Eiffel Tower. From the French or Old European
perspective, Planet of the Apes is an allegory about Empire and
domination. For two centuries, white Europeans had dominated the
world; they had been the masters where ever they went. But, when the
book was written, much had changed. The shoe was on the other foot.
So, the novel could be interpreted as white man experiencing
imperialist domination–getting a taste of his own medicine–, or as a white man’s fear(and fascination) of a new order where non-whites rule
the world. 10 yrs prior to the book’s release French got whupped by monkey-like Vietnamese in Dien Bien Phu, and at the time of its
release French were about to lose in Algeria. So, the themes of POTA
the novel is much like the themes in Bridge on the River Kwai. It’s
about role reversal of the races. The apes could represent the
Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabs, Africans, Muslims, etc.
Interestingly enough, the apes of the novel are far more advanced than
those in the movie(perhaps for budget reasons?). Apes in the novel
have even mastered space travel; indeed, the story begins with two
astronaut apes out in space.
The movie is considerably different. The first movie isn’t really
about role reversal of the races. The element of race enters in parts
2, 4, and 5(Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of
the Apes, and Battle of the Planet of the Apes; Escape of the Planet
of the Apes is like the second half of the novel except that the apes
are celebrities on Earth instead of the human being a celebrity on the
Ape Planet).
The first Planet of the Apes movie is essentially a liberal film on
the dangers of conservatism and reaction. There is no indication that
the apes are supposed to be ‘niggers’, little suggestion of ‘this is what it would be like if the blacks took over.’ Actually, Tim Burton’s remake was much along those lines as the apes in that movie did act
black-ish and their world was ugabuga jungle-ish. The ape world in the original POTA is actually very orderly, and the apes are very
civilized and disciplined, not ugabuga-ish. To be sure, one could
argue that the three different species of apes in the movie represent different races, with chimpanzees representing the rational Western
whites, orangutans representing the spiritual Eastern Orientals, and
gorillas representing the big and powerful Negroes. But, maybe not.
Though the gorillas in the movie are the blackest and limited to
menial jobs or military duties, they don’t seem to be jive-ass-ish in
any way. Indeed, they seem to be very much the law-and-order types,
kinda like the Roman or Prussian guards. They could be seen as the
fascist defenders of the Ape Order. The orangutans are oriental-ish in
some way but also could be seen as representing Western spiritual conservatism as well. They would be the Robert Borks, C. S. Lewises,
the Jerry Falwells, or the Thomas Flemings of our society. They are distrustful of ideas or change that might upset the sacred order of
things. They are like Moses in 10 Commandments holding up the
tabernacle and saying, ‘you better believe this stuff or get your ass whupped’.
The chimpanzees can be seen as rationalists, scientists, progressives, liberals, or do-gooders. One may say it was bigoted for the movie
makers to designate spiritual and cultural qualities according to
racial or species differences among the apes, but it has to be seen as satire–just like different animals in Animal Farm represent different social groups and their abilities.
Of course, it could be argued that original POTA the movie is indeed
about race because, even though the apes don’t represent blacks-on-
top, Heston plays a kind of a ‘white-nigger-ish’ role. He’s treated as less-than-human(or less-than-ape as the case may be), and the ape- supremacist orangutans insist on the inferiority of humans. So, the
white audience might have wondered, ‘how would it have been like if we
were treated like blacks–shipped across the oceans and sold as
slaves?). But, POTA works as a better critique of how humans treat
animals than how humans treat humans of other races. After all, humans
in POTA are not captured to be used as slaves or second class
citizens. They are either killed right away as pests, locked up in
zoos, or used for biological research. Indeed, before Taylor came
along and demonstrated his superior intelligence, even the
‘progressive’ chimps felt no hesitation about using humans for all
sorts of scientific–presumably grisly–experiments. And indeed, this is how we treat animals today. As long as we believe that dogs, pigs,
apes, and monkeys are less intelligent than us, we think it’s okay to
kill them by the bushel for food or experimentation. Despite PETA,
most of us treat animals like in POTA.
Anyway, the main moral conflict in POTA is between the liberal,
progressive, and rational chimps and the conservative, reactionary,
and religious orangutans. Gorillas don’t enter into the equation until Beneath the Planet of Apes where they start acting kinda ugabuga-ish (black-ish) or nazi-esque, or a bit of both. The chimps are like
Clarence Darrow and orangutans are like William Jennings Bryan in the
Scopes Monkey-Ass Trial. Chimps are for open-mindedness, rational
research, and factual understanding. The orangutans are for moral
order even if society must rely on the Noble Lie. Because we humans
identify with Charlton Heston as Taylor, we cheer for the chimps and
howl at the Orangutans. But, what makes POTA interesting is that
Taylor isn’t really a saint. Though not an evil person, he is brash, arrogant, swaggering, and self-centered. Indeed, it doesn’t seem to
bother him that he left his family and friends behind for his space
trip. He’s always searching for the New, the Undiscovered Territory,
for the Next Adventure. He’s All-American but not necessarily in the
best way. He has a heroic pioneering spirit but also a steely heart.
And, we are not really sure if he’s searching for new lands for the
sake of humanity or running from humanity(in which case he got his
ultimate wish). He’s libertarian. Taylor is restless, like Odysseus.
The difference is Odysseus, for all his wanderlust, wanted to go back
to wife and sonny boy. Taylor just seems to want to travel to new
worlds forever and ever(like some men in America in the 19th century
just wanted to keep going Westward instead of settling and building).
He doesn’t seem to have much feeling for man or nation. He laughs when
one of his mates plants a miniature US flag in the soil of the ‘new’ planet. And, when Taylor comes upon primitive human folks, he looks
forward to ruling over them. Taylor is like a futuristic cowboy
Nietzschean.
He becomes a victim of the apes, but he’s not a saint by any measure.
We identify with him because he’s human like us and because he’s
Charlton Heston(tall, handsome movie star). We sympathize with him
because he’s brutalized by the apes. But, Taylor is the kind of person
who would not hesitate to shoot animals for food or for sport. He’s
not a man of great conscience. One could say he’s even a narcissist.
And, this is what makes the film more interesting than if Taylor had
been merely a good guy victim(like Mark Wahlberg in Burton’s remake). He’s kinda like a bad guy victim. The chimps sympathize with him out
of pity and decency, but would Taylor have cared if the shoe had been
other foot?
So, even though POTA is essentially a liberal film, it has enough
ambiguity and irony to be auto-subversive. At the end, we can’t help
but agree, to some extent, that maybe the orangutan is partly right
and not the complete villain he seemed earlier. Dr. Zaius the
orangutan is a virulent anti-humanite, but what if what Zaius says
about humans is true? What if there is something about humans or
something in human nature which predisposes man to war, mayhem, and self-destruction(and making films like Jeanne Dielmann)? This is
where the relative technological underdevelopment of ape society in
the movie as opposed to advanced ape world in the book becomes
significant. In the books, apes are technological masters who rule
Earth and space, but the movie has a kind of environmental message.
The apes, though civilized, seem to live in a certain harmony with
nature. They have houses, towns, places of worship, agriculture, ride
horses, and have guns, but they don’t seem to be dominant over Earth
like we humans are today. It’s as though the apes still in their
Garden of Eden; they have not eaten the forbidden banana. Indeed,
primitive humans seem a bigger threat to the natural order than the
apes. Though the apes first appear goonish and horrifying as they
descend on humans in the cornfield, we later see that humans on this
planet are indeed a rather lowly, grubby, ugly, and wretched lot.
Zaius has a stone heart when it comes to humans and a nasty vitriolic contempt for chimpanzee rationalism and skepticism, but he’s not
completely inhuman or un-simian as the case may be. He has a profound
love of ape society and its values, sacred symbols, and moral order.
He really wants what is best for ape society. He’s not out to become dictator or become the richest ape in town or some such. He wants to
preserve the sacred values that safeguard the apes from the temptation
of ‘progress’. Zaius, who turns out to know more about humans that he lets on, came to the conclusion that humans are innately unstable and
that mankind destroyed itself through hubris, arrogance, and
aggression. Of course, he also fears humans because, whether humans
are good or bad, there’s a possibility that the existence of more
humans like Taylor–via offsprings or from other parts of the planet–
may lead to apes being ruled under a human order(like non-whites came
to be ruled by white imperialists). (Suppose alien beings from another
planet came here, and they had IQ of 1,000. Suppose they keep coming
and coming and having lots of offsprings. Would we be ready to accept
the dominance of the new species? Whether these alien newcomers are
good or bad, we wouldn’t want a different species to rule over us.)
Anyway, the ending leaves us with skepticism, and we are not so sure
about the liberal pieties dominant throughout the film. The
implications are as conservative as liberal, or neither–just plain
nihilist and despairing. The ruins of Statue of Liberty can be read in
many ways. It can be a cautionary warning about science and technology
or about man’s tribal or ideological tendency toward aggression, war,
and (self)destruction–especially alarming in a world with nuclear
weapons. If the ‘rational’ or ‘scientific’ hubris for Truth leads to such, isn’t it better to cling to the Noble Lie? POTA isn’t sure and neither are we.
Some may argue that Heston-as-Taylor stands for the Jewish-and-or-
Negro threat on the white order. Gentile folks have long feared the
Jews and the Negroes. The Egyptians killed the sons of Hebrews because
On Monday, March 30, 2009 at 5:48:10 PM UTC-10, good grief wrote:
Planet of the Apes and Its Implications.
Planet of the Apes has always been one of my favorite films. I loved
it as a kid though the first viewing freaked me out; I had screaming
fits and turned it off after the first 30 min–I must have been 5 yrs old. So, I really saw the entire film when I was around nine. I loved every minute of it, and I like it even today. Of course, reasons for liking it changed over time.
I saw Planet of the Apes again some months ago and couldn’t help noticing certain parallels with the 10 Commandments, not least because Charlton Heston played both Moses and Taylor. I’m not sure if the
makers of POTA consciously thought of 10 Commandments, but the two
films make for interesting comparisons. Both are stories of alien minorities, oppression, liberation, and uncertainty. But, if Ten Commandments reflected the moral certitudes of the Cold War 50s, POTA reflects the anarchic skepticism of the late 60s. Moses leads his
people out of bondage to an uncertain but promised land. There will be many obstacles and tragedies, but God is on their side. Taylor flees Apeland toward freedom, but he’s practically alone, with only a horse and mute bimbo. He rides toward the future only to re-discover
humanity as a past-tense. Triumphant miracles aid the Hebrews on
their path to freedom; tragic catastrophe awaits Taylor on his
journey. Moses condemns the Golden Calf worshipers and saves the good members of his flock. Taylor condemns all of mankind, but deep down realizes and knows that he too is part of cursed humanity.
Another movie that comes to mind in relation to POTA is Bridge on the River Kwai, hardly surprising since both stories were written by the French author Pierre Boulle. I haven’t read Bridge on the River Kwai
and don’t know what changes were made for David Lean’s film, but both stories share common themes. When the books were written, France still
had an empire stretching all over Asia and Africa. For a couple of centuries, the French, along with the British, assumed that the
dominance of white man would practically be permanent. The West was
great and powerful; white man was advanced and well-organized. Whether
one called it the white man’s burden or white man’s destiny, it seemed like the world was meant to be ruled by white people.
The first crack in this assumption happened with the rapid rise of
Japan. An isolated feudal-state, Japan catapulted to world power
status in a few decades after its gates were crashed open by Brits and Americans. In 1905, the Japanese, deemed a newcomer to world power politics, defeated the Russian Bear. Japanese power grew in Asia to
the point where it became the premier imperialist player in northern China. But, that was not enough for Japan. Japan wanted dominance over
all of Asia. This brought Japan face to face with European powers in Southeast Asia. Japan’s victory over British, French, and Dutch forces in Southeast Asia was shocking to both Westerners and Asians. It was
as if the world was turned upside down. This was something new. Yes,
Japan had defeated Russia in 1905 but that didn’t lead to rule over white folks. Yes, Japan had competed with Western powers in China and elsewhere, but Japan didn’t gain dominance over white-ruled areas.
This all changed in 1941 when Japan charged into Western Imperialist holdings in Asia. This was all the more shocking because Japanese
victory was so swift and resounding. There were deeper implications in this victory for all Asians–most living under colonialism–could now see that white folks could be defeated by non-whites. Though most
Asians resented and hated Japanese imperialism–even more than Western Imperialism–, Japan’s victory inspired anti-Western-Imperialist movements(both Rightist and Leftist)all over Asia, Middle East, and elsewhere.
Of course, Japan was finally defeated by white powers. US smashed
Japan in the seas and from the sky. Russians charged into northern
China and totally whupped Japanese ass. But, the West–especially Europe–never recovered from the shock of defeat at the hands of Japan
in Southeast Asia. (And, Russians later came to fear the 800 million Chinese communists that turned into enemies.) Indeed, when the
Europeans returned to take control of Southeast Asia, it was
hopeless. Even Southeast Asians who hated the Japanese took
inspiration from the Japanese example and fought against the re- imposition of Western imperialism. Dutch had to abandon Indonesia.
French gave up Indochina. British realized its days were numbered in Malaysia. Americans, though not an imperialist power, inherited the
French mess, tried to make the best of it(create an anti-communist
South Vietnam), but was eventually pushed out by crazed communist Vietnamese in the North.
Of course, victory over the white race by non-whites is nothing new if
we look at all of history. The ancient Huns whupped the Europeans over
a long period. The Mongol armies reached as far as Paris at one time,
and the heirs of the great Khans ruled over Russia for centuries.
But, since the time of Western advances in science, technology, and industry, it seemed to Western Europeans and Americans that there was nothing to turn the tide of history; white folks would rule and rule
for good. Of course, many white folks saw this as a good thing since
they were supposedly good Christians bringing the light of progress to
all those crazy, backward, poor, and benighted darkies. There was some truth to this as much of the world was ruled by oppressive tyrants or systems, steeped in superstition and idiotic customs, and such. The concept of universal human rights, modern medicine, democracy, and
other good stuff all originated and came from the West. The West ended slavery all over the world. Japan and Turkey gained much by opening up
to Western powers(or being forcibly opened up by them). But, there was also an element of arrogance and high-falutin-ness on the part of many Westerners. Some white folks just couldn’t resist going around
calling colored folks ‘niggers’, ‘ragheads’, ‘dotheads’, ‘chinks’,
‘injuns’, and the like. And, many white folks came to rest on their laurels. And, there was also an assumption among non-whites(who were steeped in superstitious thinking)that white folks were god-like, all- powerful, invincible, magical, and such. This was one of the reason
why small numbers of white folks could rule over so many darkie folks. After shooting a bunch of people with their terrifyingly loud guns
and cannons, the locals and natives thought white man was not to mess around with but to respect and worship. (Darkies had a might-is-right moral system and willingly submitted to white power... before the
concept of Western universal human rights influenced the minds of European-educated darkie elites and intellectuals.) Also, many
natives didn’t mind having white folks rule over them in many cases because whites were, in many cases, preferable to the far crueler and
more exploitative local chieftains. But, once the magic of white invincibility wore off, white folks were in deep doo doo all over
Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The world was turning upside down. The
white man was forced to consider a scenario that had seemed utterly ludicrous in the past: the idea that non-whites would gain dominance
over the whites.
In the novel of POTA, two space apes come upon a message written by a human(which forms the bulk of the story). Never mind the story
itself; the space apes are besides themselves in laughter over the
notion of a human being able to write anything, let alone a long
complex story such as the one they came upon; they finally conclude it must some practical joke written by a clever ape. Similarly, the idea
of Western dominance crumbling overnight and non-white rising in the
world have seemed pretty outlandish to most white folks prior to the
end of WWII. There is some of this feeling even today as much of the non-white world is still pretty backward and depressing. Africa is
worse off now than during the Age of Imperialism. Much of the Middle
East is pitiful and piss poor. Latin America, where most people are non-white, is still mired in poverty. Though Latin American whites are losing power in relative terms, there’s no indication that Latin
America will be world-leaders in the 21st century.
But, Asia is another story. In the latter half of the 20th century,
the rise of Asia meant Japan and the so-called tigers(S. Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc). As impressive as this has been,
those nations could pose no real threat to the Western dominated world order(though there was much anxiety over Japan). For starters, most of them were military colonial posts for American power. But, China and India, politically and militarily sovereign powers, entered the
picture in a major way since the 1990s, and these two giants(with
combined population of 2.3 billion) are making a real difference in
the world. Personally, I think the Indians are too messy and divisive
and the Chinese are too unoriginal and corrupt to become dominant
world players, but the future is always uncertain.
Anyway, China and India have many people worried. Russians are worried that they may lose Siberia to the Chinese who are entering legally and illegally in huge numbers to cut down trees and work in(and take over) various industries. The biggest problem for the West is not so much
the rise of the non-West but the legal and illegal massive entry of non-white folks into EU and US. For EU, Muslims pose a cultural
threat while black Africans pose a physical threat. US, already in big trouble with its 40 million blacks, is being invaded by more and more illegal poor Mexicans who want to reconquer the entire SW territory.
Also, the arrival of more immigrants from Africa, Carribean, and other places means more crazy blacks in America to mess things up. Non-
white folks have little chance of taking control of the brain centers
of the Western World as they don’t happen to be the brightest nor economically most successful people. But, neither are the brain
centers in white hands due to the fact that Jews are smarter than (gentile)white folks. So, rich and intellectual Jews have gained
control of the brain centers of the West. Even goy whites come under
the influence of these Jews–Karl Max, Eric Hobsbawm, Noam Chomsky,
Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman. Right or
Left, the Jew is out to destroy white power. Whether it’s diversity- obsessed multi-culturalist collectivism or individual-obsessed libertarianism, Jewish influence wages war on the concept of white identity, white unity, white pride, and white survival.
Anyway, the world appeared to be turning upside down in the mid
century of the 20th century. Europeans, who had enjoyed dominance
around the world for a couple of centuries, not only seemed to be
losing their empire but in the process of being taken over by the barbarians or alien civilizations(or ideologies). Japan posed the
first real threat but was soundly defeated by 1945. But, the Third
World was rumbling. Chinese communists triumphed by 1949. Communism
was a special case because it was both European and anti-Western. It
was essentially a radical Jewish ideology that had taken hold of
Russians, whose European-ness(cultural or racial) was doubted by many
in the West and even by Russians themselves(as many Russians took national/cultural pride in their distinctness). In time, a major
branch of communism came to be associated with the Third World, as an empowering ideology and weapon of non-white folks. Communism inspired Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, Arabs, etc. Many feared that
communism would sweep across the world, one of the reasons why the
Vietnam War was deemed crucial to both US and the communist bloc. Both sides saw it as the crucial piece of domino. When US pulled out of Vietnam, many people in the West were convinced that other dominoes
would fall... and people in China and Russia were eagerly rubbing
their hands in glee at the prospect of world revolution. Of course, it didn’t happen that way which goes to show how worthless and unpopular communism is in the long run.
Anyway, it wasn’t just the rise of USSR, Red China, and communist movements which upset Western European assumptions of the dominance of
the White Man. It was also the rise of the Americans(despite America’s status as a Western power). This may seem strange given the fact that
the majority of Americans have always been white. Even so, Europeans
saw American culture, manners, assumptions, values, and ideology as a threat to the European World Order. America was seen as an upstart
nation, a culture-less civilization, society lacking in soul and
manners, and such. Americans were seen as immature barbarians. Many Europeans saw America as the continent where all their undesirables emigrated to(though, to be sure, many Europeans had great admiration
for America as well); in contrast, of course, and despite what Emma Lazarus wrote, Americans saw themselves as people with enough brains
to have left the stinking Old World. At any rate, even though America
had, by the end of WWI, become the mightiest nation on Earth, most Europeans held onto the view that they, not Americans, were the true masters of the world, with Brits and French leading the way. Of
course, Germans were pissed at the notion of being left out of the
world order. Regarding themselves as a great people, Germans wondered
why they had to be hemmed in by the British Navy and by the armies of France and Russia. In a way, the rise of Fascism and Nazism are
strange developments in Europe for both were, at once, as European as
red wine and as alien as a Martian’s teat. On the one hand, Fascism
and National Socialism claimed to protect and preserve the best of
Europe; on the other hand, they were radical futurist ideologies which aimed to replace the genteel bourgeois order with a militant
corporatist order. It was almost as if Europe had to be radically
altered to be saved; it had to lose itself to find itself.
So, Bridge on the River Kwai has multiple meanings and implications.
It can be read as white vs yellow, Anglo vs. America, traditionalism
vs fascism, upper class vs. lower class, idealism vs humanism, etc.
There are many levels of hierarchy, varying degrees of opposing
dynamics. William Holden is the practical and individualistic
American who wants to look out for #1, himself. Yet, as he becomes involved in the mission, he gradually becomes more heroic and self- sacrificing than others. The Japanese are the new overlords, but their authority–regarding both natives and white prisoners–is unceertain. Anglos are there to help the natives overthrow the Japanese occupiers,
but Anglos themselves are imperialists. Though Holden is supposedly a member of a civilization that safeguards freedom and liberty(The
West), he is deviously coerced to join the mission. The most complex figure in the movie is, of course, Alec Guinness’s character. He’s an odd blend of heroism, toughness, patriotic duty, and honor... which perversely and unwittingly turns him into the biggest fool in the
movie. He’s the best and the worst. He cares about his men, his
national honor, and such and such. But, he becomes so wrapped up in
ideals and high falutin notions and rationalizations that he fails to
see his betrayal.
In a way, the Guinness character stands for the hubris of virtue,
honor, and noble cause. People built empires with big ideas about spreading civilization and the true faith. Communists killed millions
in the name of progress. So in love with the Idea of Progress, they
became blind to of millions of victims. Hitler thought he would save Western Civilization, yet his obsession with the highest achievements
of the West led him to commit horrible acts. We can go on and on.
Man is a beast without ideas and ideals, without virtues such as
honor, nobility, heroism, and dignity. But, such ideas and values can
also make man intolerant of peoples and things that fall short of the higher or nobler ideals; man can be barbaric in the fight against barbarism–even true of Allies in WWII with the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo. To be sure, context does matter. The bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, though horrible, were still different than Nazi killing
of the Jews. In actual deed, both involved mass slaughter, but
Americans wanted to end the war and bring freedom to the Japanese
while the Nazis wanted to kill most Jews. Though it makes hypocrites
out of all of us, context and agenda do matter. For this reason, Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai is not an evil nor treacherous
man; he’s a man whose best qualities oddly enough lead him to the
worst judgment of his life. If he has one major failing, it is hubris
and class snobbery which leads him to think he knows what’s best for
his men and that’s that(and most of his men go along because they too were raised in a class-based society where blokes are supposed to do
as the gentleman says; in this regard, William Holden is a bigger
threat to Alec Guinness(European values) in some way than the Japanese are. Japanese may challenge the British Empire, but both civilizations believe in hierarchy and form(and proper place for each individual). William Holden represents the free, self-centered, and self-willed individual; he’s like the Charlton Heston character in POTA.
Anyway, let’s discuss POTA, its meaning, and its significance. In retrospect, it seems less impressive today as we’ve been bombarded
with out-of-this-world special effects and CGI for the past 30 yrs.
Film tricks and techniques have advanced far beyond anything even
dreamt possible back in 1968. But, this doesn’t necessarily make POTA worse; the original POTA relied more on story, character, and script
than most of today’s sci-fi or action movies which are all about
speed, explosions, and such.
And, there was a certain advantage in the fact that the director
Franklin Schaffner was a workman-like director than an auteur. While I have no doubt that Orson Welles or Stanley Kubrick could have made a
more interesting version of POTA, an unpretentious skilled director is preferable to some pain-in-the-ass auteur wanna-be who turns promising material into self-deluded aesthetic gimcrackery–just think of the crimes of Ken Russell or Tim Burton. Schaffner did no more and no less than what he was hired to do. POTA is not great filmmaking but is
solid filmmaking. And, because Schaffner’s directorship doesn’t intrude upon other aspects of the movie and hog all the attention, we
can enjoy all of POTA’s parts.
POTA is less sci-fi than satire. Though a film can have trappings of
both satire and sci-fi, there’s a key difference. Satire uses technological or scientific themes to make a point about humanity
whereas conventional science fiction is primarily interested in the speculative technology itself. Considered from a scientific angle,
POTA makes no sense and has no plausibility whatsoever. But, it works wonderfully as satire, as a consideration of our world through a
warped looking glass. POTA is, after all, not about the future or the dangers/promises of science/technology but about us here and now. It should be regarded as something like Animal Farm, and indeed could
well have been called Ape House. The pigs in Orwell’s story
represented communists in the Soviet Union, and the apes in POTA are
us today(or at least in the 60s). So, people who complain about POTA’s bad science are nincompoops.
So, what does POTA say about us, humanity, or whatever? First, we have
to distinguish the book from the novel. The original novel was in
French and the iconic image at the end of the film is not the Statue
of Liberty but the Eiffel Tower. From the French or Old European perspective, Planet of the Apes is an allegory about Empire and domination. For two centuries, white Europeans had dominated the
world; they had been the masters where ever they went. But, when the
book was written, much had changed. The shoe was on the other foot.
So, the novel could be interpreted as white man experiencing
imperialist domination–getting a taste of his own medicine–, or as a white man’s fear(and fascination) of a new order where non-whites rule the world. 10 yrs prior to the book’s release French got whupped by monkey-like Vietnamese in Dien Bien Phu, and at the time of its
release French were about to lose in Algeria. So, the themes of POTA
the novel is much like the themes in Bridge on the River Kwai. It’s about role reversal of the races. The apes could represent the
Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabs, Africans, Muslims, etc. Interestingly enough, the apes of the novel are far more advanced than those in the movie(perhaps for budget reasons?). Apes in the novel
have even mastered space travel; indeed, the story begins with two astronaut apes out in space.
The movie is considerably different. The first movie isn’t really
about role reversal of the races. The element of race enters in parts
2, 4, and 5(Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of
the Apes, and Battle of the Planet of the Apes; Escape of the Planet
of the Apes is like the second half of the novel except that the apes
are celebrities on Earth instead of the human being a celebrity on the
Ape Planet).
The first Planet of the Apes movie is essentially a liberal film on
the dangers of conservatism and reaction. There is no indication that
the apes are supposed to be ‘niggers’, little suggestion of ‘this is what it would be like if the blacks took over.’ Actually, Tim Burton’s remake was much along those lines as the apes in that movie did act black-ish and their world was ugabuga jungle-ish. The ape world in the original POTA is actually very orderly, and the apes are very
civilized and disciplined, not ugabuga-ish. To be sure, one could
argue that the three different species of apes in the movie represent different races, with chimpanzees representing the rational Western whites, orangutans representing the spiritual Eastern Orientals, and gorillas representing the big and powerful Negroes. But, maybe not.
Though the gorillas in the movie are the blackest and limited to
menial jobs or military duties, they don’t seem to be jive-ass-ish in any way. Indeed, they seem to be very much the law-and-order types,
kinda like the Roman or Prussian guards. They could be seen as the
fascist defenders of the Ape Order. The orangutans are oriental-ish in some way but also could be seen as representing Western spiritual conservatism as well. They would be the Robert Borks, C. S. Lewises,
the Jerry Falwells, or the Thomas Flemings of our society. They are distrustful of ideas or change that might upset the sacred order of things. They are like Moses in 10 Commandments holding up the
tabernacle and saying, ‘you better believe this stuff or get your ass whupped’.
The chimpanzees can be seen as rationalists, scientists, progressives, liberals, or do-gooders. One may say it was bigoted for the movie
makers to designate spiritual and cultural qualities according to
racial or species differences among the apes, but it has to be seen as satire–just like different animals in Animal Farm represent different social groups and their abilities.
Of course, it could be argued that original POTA the movie is indeed
about race because, even though the apes don’t represent blacks-on-
top, Heston plays a kind of a ‘white-nigger-ish’ role. He’s treated as
less-than-human(or less-than-ape as the case may be), and the ape- supremacist orangutans insist on the inferiority of humans. So, the
white audience might have wondered, ‘how would it have been like if we were treated like blacks–shipped across the oceans and sold as
slaves?). But, POTA works as a better critique of how humans treat
animals than how humans treat humans of other races. After all, humans
in POTA are not captured to be used as slaves or second class
citizens. They are either killed right away as pests, locked up in
zoos, or used for biological research. Indeed, before Taylor came
along and demonstrated his superior intelligence, even the ‘progressive’ chimps felt no hesitation about using humans for all sorts of scientific–presumably grisly–experiments. And indeed, this is how we treat animals today. As long as we believe that dogs, pigs,
apes, and monkeys are less intelligent than us, we think it’s okay to kill them by the bushel for food or experimentation. Despite PETA,
most of us treat animals like in POTA.
Anyway, the main moral conflict in POTA is between the liberal, progressive, and rational chimps and the conservative, reactionary,
and religious orangutans. Gorillas don’t enter into the equation until Beneath the Planet of Apes where they start acting kinda ugabuga-ish (black-ish) or nazi-esque, or a bit of both. The chimps are like
Clarence Darrow and orangutans are like William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey-Ass Trial. Chimps are for open-mindedness, rational research, and factual understanding. The orangutans are for moral
order even if society must rely on the Noble Lie. Because we humans identify with Charlton Heston as Taylor, we cheer for the chimps and
howl at the Orangutans. But, what makes POTA interesting is that
Taylor isn’t really a saint. Though not an evil person, he is brash, arrogant, swaggering, and self-centered. Indeed, it doesn’t seem to bother him that he left his family and friends behind for his space
trip. He’s always searching for the New, the Undiscovered Territory,
for the Next Adventure. He’s All-American but not necessarily in the best way. He has a heroic pioneering spirit but also a steely heart.
And, we are not really sure if he’s searching for new lands for the
sake of humanity or running from humanity(in which case he got his ultimate wish). He’s libertarian. Taylor is restless, like Odysseus.
The difference is Odysseus, for all his wanderlust, wanted to go back
to wife and sonny boy. Taylor just seems to want to travel to new
worlds forever and ever(like some men in America in the 19th century
just wanted to keep going Westward instead of settling and building).
He doesn’t seem to have much feeling for man or nation. He laughs when one of his mates plants a miniature US flag in the soil of the ‘new’ planet. And, when Taylor comes upon primitive human folks, he looks forward to ruling over them. Taylor is like a futuristic cowboy Nietzschean.
He becomes a victim of the apes, but he’s not a saint by any measure.
We identify with him because he’s human like us and because he’s Charlton Heston(tall, handsome movie star). We sympathize with him
because he’s brutalized by the apes. But, Taylor is the kind of person who would not hesitate to shoot animals for food or for sport. He’s
not a man of great conscience. One could say he’s even a narcissist. And, this is what makes the film more interesting than if Taylor had
been merely a good guy victim(like Mark Wahlberg in Burton’s remake). He’s kinda like a bad guy victim. The chimps sympathize with him out
of pity and decency, but would Taylor have cared if the shoe had been other foot?
So, even though POTA is essentially a liberal film, it has enough ambiguity and irony to be auto-subversive. At the end, we can’t help
but agree, to some extent, that maybe the orangutan is partly right
and not the complete villain he seemed earlier. Dr. Zaius the
orangutan is a virulent anti-humanite, but what if what Zaius says
about humans is true? What if there is something about humans or
something in human nature which predisposes man to war, mayhem, and self-destruction(and making films like Jeanne Dielmann)? This is
where the relative technological underdevelopment of ape society in
the movie as opposed to advanced ape world in the book becomes significant. In the books, apes are technological masters who rule
Earth and space, but the movie has a kind of environmental message.
The apes, though civilized, seem to live in a certain harmony with
nature. They have houses, towns, places of worship, agriculture, ride horses, and have guns, but they don’t seem to be dominant over Earth like we humans are today. It’s as though the apes still in their
Garden of Eden; they have not eaten the forbidden banana. Indeed, primitive humans seem a bigger threat to the natural order than the
apes. Though the apes first appear goonish and horrifying as they
descend on humans in the cornfield, we later see that humans on this planet are indeed a rather lowly, grubby, ugly, and wretched lot.
Zaius has a stone heart when it comes to humans and a nasty vitriolic contempt for chimpanzee rationalism and skepticism, but he’s not completely inhuman or un-simian as the case may be. He has a profound
love of ape society and its values, sacred symbols, and moral order.
He really wants what is best for ape society. He’s not out to become dictator or become the richest ape in town or some such. He wants to preserve the sacred values that safeguard the apes from the temptation
of ‘progress’. Zaius, who turns out to know more about humans that he lets on, came to the conclusion that humans are innately unstable and
that mankind destroyed itself through hubris, arrogance, and
aggression. Of course, he also fears humans because, whether humans
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 8:37:42 PM UTC-10, gggg gggg wrote:
On Monday, March 30, 2009 at 5:48:10 PM UTC-10, good grief wrote:
Planet of the Apes and Its Implications.
Planet of the Apes has always been one of my favorite films. I loved
it as a kid though the first viewing freaked me out; I had screaming fits and turned it off after the first 30 min–I must have been 5 yrs old. So, I really saw the entire film when I was around nine. I loved every minute of it, and I like it even today. Of course, reasons for liking it changed over time.
I saw Planet of the Apes again some months ago and couldn’t help noticing certain parallels with the 10 Commandments, not least because Charlton Heston played both Moses and Taylor. I’m not sure if the makers of POTA consciously thought of 10 Commandments, but the two
films make for interesting comparisons. Both are stories of alien minorities, oppression, liberation, and uncertainty. But, if Ten Commandments reflected the moral certitudes of the Cold War 50s, POTA reflects the anarchic skepticism of the late 60s. Moses leads his
people out of bondage to an uncertain but promised land. There will be many obstacles and tragedies, but God is on their side. Taylor flees Apeland toward freedom, but he’s practically alone, with only a horse and mute bimbo. He rides toward the future only to re-discover
humanity as a past-tense. Triumphant miracles aid the Hebrews on
their path to freedom; tragic catastrophe awaits Taylor on his
journey. Moses condemns the Golden Calf worshipers and saves the good members of his flock. Taylor condemns all of mankind, but deep down realizes and knows that he too is part of cursed humanity.
Another movie that comes to mind in relation to POTA is Bridge on the River Kwai, hardly surprising since both stories were written by the French author Pierre Boulle. I haven’t read Bridge on the River Kwai and don’t know what changes were made for David Lean’s film, but both
stories share common themes. When the books were written, France still had an empire stretching all over Asia and Africa. For a couple of centuries, the French, along with the British, assumed that the dominance of white man would practically be permanent. The West was great and powerful; white man was advanced and well-organized. Whether one called it the white man’s burden or white man’s destiny, it seemed
like the world was meant to be ruled by white people.
The first crack in this assumption happened with the rapid rise of Japan. An isolated feudal-state, Japan catapulted to world power
status in a few decades after its gates were crashed open by Brits and Americans. In 1905, the Japanese, deemed a newcomer to world power politics, defeated the Russian Bear. Japanese power grew in Asia to
the point where it became the premier imperialist player in northern China. But, that was not enough for Japan. Japan wanted dominance over all of Asia. This brought Japan face to face with European powers in Southeast Asia. Japan’s victory over British, French, and Dutch forces in Southeast Asia was shocking to both Westerners and Asians. It was
as if the world was turned upside down. This was something new. Yes, Japan had defeated Russia in 1905 but that didn’t lead to rule over white folks. Yes, Japan had competed with Western powers in China and elsewhere, but Japan didn’t gain dominance over white-ruled areas. This all changed in 1941 when Japan charged into Western Imperialist holdings in Asia. This was all the more shocking because Japanese victory was so swift and resounding. There were deeper implications in this victory for all Asians–most living under colonialism–could now see that white folks could be defeated by non-whites. Though most
Asians resented and hated Japanese imperialism–even more than Western Imperialism–, Japan’s victory inspired anti-Western-Imperialist movements(both Rightist and Leftist)all over Asia, Middle East, and elsewhere.
Of course, Japan was finally defeated by white powers. US smashed
Japan in the seas and from the sky. Russians charged into northern
China and totally whupped Japanese ass. But, the West–especially Europe–never recovered from the shock of defeat at the hands of Japan in Southeast Asia. (And, Russians later came to fear the 800 million Chinese communists that turned into enemies.) Indeed, when the
Europeans returned to take control of Southeast Asia, it was
hopeless. Even Southeast Asians who hated the Japanese took
inspiration from the Japanese example and fought against the re- imposition of Western imperialism. Dutch had to abandon Indonesia. French gave up Indochina. British realized its days were numbered in Malaysia. Americans, though not an imperialist power, inherited the French mess, tried to make the best of it(create an anti-communist
South Vietnam), but was eventually pushed out by crazed communist Vietnamese in the North.
Of course, victory over the white race by non-whites is nothing new if we look at all of history. The ancient Huns whupped the Europeans over
a long period. The Mongol armies reached as far as Paris at one time, and the heirs of the great Khans ruled over Russia for centuries.
But, since the time of Western advances in science, technology, and industry, it seemed to Western Europeans and Americans that there was nothing to turn the tide of history; white folks would rule and rule
for good. Of course, many white folks saw this as a good thing since they were supposedly good Christians bringing the light of progress to all those crazy, backward, poor, and benighted darkies. There was some truth to this as much of the world was ruled by oppressive tyrants or systems, steeped in superstition and idiotic customs, and such. The concept of universal human rights, modern medicine, democracy, and
other good stuff all originated and came from the West. The West ended slavery all over the world. Japan and Turkey gained much by opening up to Western powers(or being forcibly opened up by them). But, there was also an element of arrogance and high-falutin-ness on the part of many Westerners. Some white folks just couldn’t resist going around
calling colored folks ‘niggers’, ‘ragheads’, ‘dotheads’, ‘chinks’,
‘injuns’, and the like. And, many white folks came to rest on their laurels. And, there was also an assumption among non-whites(who were steeped in superstitious thinking)that white folks were god-like, all- powerful, invincible, magical, and such. This was one of the reason
why small numbers of white folks could rule over so many darkie folks. After shooting a bunch of people with their terrifyingly loud guns
and cannons, the locals and natives thought white man was not to mess around with but to respect and worship. (Darkies had a might-is-right moral system and willingly submitted to white power... before the concept of Western universal human rights influenced the minds of European-educated darkie elites and intellectuals.) Also, many
natives didn’t mind having white folks rule over them in many cases because whites were, in many cases, preferable to the far crueler and more exploitative local chieftains. But, once the magic of white invincibility wore off, white folks were in deep doo doo all over Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The world was turning upside down. The white man was forced to consider a scenario that had seemed utterly ludicrous in the past: the idea that non-whites would gain dominance over the whites.
In the novel of POTA, two space apes come upon a message written by a human(which forms the bulk of the story). Never mind the story
itself; the space apes are besides themselves in laughter over the notion of a human being able to write anything, let alone a long
complex story such as the one they came upon; they finally conclude it must some practical joke written by a clever ape. Similarly, the idea
of Western dominance crumbling overnight and non-white rising in the world have seemed pretty outlandish to most white folks prior to the
end of WWII. There is some of this feeling even today as much of the non-white world is still pretty backward and depressing. Africa is
worse off now than during the Age of Imperialism. Much of the Middle East is pitiful and piss poor. Latin America, where most people are non-white, is still mired in poverty. Though Latin American whites are losing power in relative terms, there’s no indication that Latin America will be world-leaders in the 21st century.
But, Asia is another story. In the latter half of the 20th century,
the rise of Asia meant Japan and the so-called tigers(S. Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc). As impressive as this has been, those nations could pose no real threat to the Western dominated world order(though there was much anxiety over Japan). For starters, most of them were military colonial posts for American power. But, China and India, politically and militarily sovereign powers, entered the
picture in a major way since the 1990s, and these two giants(with combined population of 2.3 billion) are making a real difference in
the world. Personally, I think the Indians are too messy and divisive and the Chinese are too unoriginal and corrupt to become dominant
world players, but the future is always uncertain.
Anyway, China and India have many people worried. Russians are worried that they may lose Siberia to the Chinese who are entering legally and illegally in huge numbers to cut down trees and work in(and take over) various industries. The biggest problem for the West is not so much
the rise of the non-West but the legal and illegal massive entry of non-white folks into EU and US. For EU, Muslims pose a cultural
threat while black Africans pose a physical threat. US, already in big trouble with its 40 million blacks, is being invaded by more and more illegal poor Mexicans who want to reconquer the entire SW territory. Also, the arrival of more immigrants from Africa, Carribean, and other places means more crazy blacks in America to mess things up. Non-
white folks have little chance of taking control of the brain centers
of the Western World as they don’t happen to be the brightest nor economically most successful people. But, neither are the brain
centers in white hands due to the fact that Jews are smarter than (gentile)white folks. So, rich and intellectual Jews have gained
control of the brain centers of the West. Even goy whites come under
the influence of these Jews–Karl Max, Eric Hobsbawm, Noam Chomsky, Betty Friedan, Naomi Klein, Ayn Rand, or Milton Friedman. Right or
Left, the Jew is out to destroy white power. Whether it’s diversity- obsessed multi-culturalist collectivism or individual-obsessed libertarianism, Jewish influence wages war on the concept of white identity, white unity, white pride, and white survival.
Anyway, the world appeared to be turning upside down in the mid
century of the 20th century. Europeans, who had enjoyed dominance
around the world for a couple of centuries, not only seemed to be
losing their empire but in the process of being taken over by the barbarians or alien civilizations(or ideologies). Japan posed the
first real threat but was soundly defeated by 1945. But, the Third
World was rumbling. Chinese communists triumphed by 1949. Communism
was a special case because it was both European and anti-Western. It
was essentially a radical Jewish ideology that had taken hold of Russians, whose European-ness(cultural or racial) was doubted by many
in the West and even by Russians themselves(as many Russians took national/cultural pride in their distinctness). In time, a major
branch of communism came to be associated with the Third World, as an empowering ideology and weapon of non-white folks. Communism inspired Asians, Latin Americans, Africans, Arabs, etc. Many feared that communism would sweep across the world, one of the reasons why the Vietnam War was deemed crucial to both US and the communist bloc. Both sides saw it as the crucial piece of domino. When US pulled out of Vietnam, many people in the West were convinced that other dominoes would fall... and people in China and Russia were eagerly rubbing
their hands in glee at the prospect of world revolution. Of course, it didn’t happen that way which goes to show how worthless and unpopular communism is in the long run.
Anyway, it wasn’t just the rise of USSR, Red China, and communist movements which upset Western European assumptions of the dominance of the White Man. It was also the rise of the Americans(despite America’s status as a Western power). This may seem strange given the fact that the majority of Americans have always been white. Even so, Europeans
saw American culture, manners, assumptions, values, and ideology as a threat to the European World Order. America was seen as an upstart nation, a culture-less civilization, society lacking in soul and manners, and such. Americans were seen as immature barbarians. Many Europeans saw America as the continent where all their undesirables emigrated to(though, to be sure, many Europeans had great admiration
for America as well); in contrast, of course, and despite what Emma Lazarus wrote, Americans saw themselves as people with enough brains
to have left the stinking Old World. At any rate, even though America had, by the end of WWI, become the mightiest nation on Earth, most Europeans held onto the view that they, not Americans, were the true masters of the world, with Brits and French leading the way. Of
course, Germans were pissed at the notion of being left out of the
world order. Regarding themselves as a great people, Germans wondered why they had to be hemmed in by the British Navy and by the armies of France and Russia. In a way, the rise of Fascism and Nazism are
strange developments in Europe for both were, at once, as European as red wine and as alien as a Martian’s teat. On the one hand, Fascism and National Socialism claimed to protect and preserve the best of Europe; on the other hand, they were radical futurist ideologies which aimed to replace the genteel bourgeois order with a militant
corporatist order. It was almost as if Europe had to be radically altered to be saved; it had to lose itself to find itself.
So, Bridge on the River Kwai has multiple meanings and implications.
It can be read as white vs yellow, Anglo vs. America, traditionalism
vs fascism, upper class vs. lower class, idealism vs humanism, etc. There are many levels of hierarchy, varying degrees of opposing dynamics. William Holden is the practical and individualistic
American who wants to look out for #1, himself. Yet, as he becomes involved in the mission, he gradually becomes more heroic and self- sacrificing than others. The Japanese are the new overlords, but their authority–regarding both natives and white prisoners–is unceertain. Anglos are there to help the natives overthrow the Japanese occupiers, but Anglos themselves are imperialists. Though Holden is supposedly a member of a civilization that safeguards freedom and liberty(The
West), he is deviously coerced to join the mission. The most complex figure in the movie is, of course, Alec Guinness’s character. He’s an
odd blend of heroism, toughness, patriotic duty, and honor... which perversely and unwittingly turns him into the biggest fool in the
movie. He’s the best and the worst. He cares about his men, his national honor, and such and such. But, he becomes so wrapped up in ideals and high falutin notions and rationalizations that he fails to see his betrayal.
In a way, the Guinness character stands for the hubris of virtue,
honor, and noble cause. People built empires with big ideas about spreading civilization and the true faith. Communists killed millions
in the name of progress. So in love with the Idea of Progress, they became blind to of millions of victims. Hitler thought he would save Western Civilization, yet his obsession with the highest achievements
of the West led him to commit horrible acts. We can go on and on.
Man is a beast without ideas and ideals, without virtues such as
honor, nobility, heroism, and dignity. But, such ideas and values can also make man intolerant of peoples and things that fall short of the higher or nobler ideals; man can be barbaric in the fight against barbarism–even true of Allies in WWII with the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo. To be sure, context does matter. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though horrible, were still different than Nazi killing
of the Jews. In actual deed, both involved mass slaughter, but
Americans wanted to end the war and bring freedom to the Japanese
while the Nazis wanted to kill most Jews. Though it makes hypocrites
out of all of us, context and agenda do matter. For this reason, Alec Guinness in Bridge on the River Kwai is not an evil nor treacherous
man; he’s a man whose best qualities oddly enough lead him to the worst judgment of his life. If he has one major failing, it is hubris and class snobbery which leads him to think he knows what’s best for his men and that’s that(and most of his men go along because they too were raised in a class-based society where blokes are supposed to do
as the gentleman says; in this regard, William Holden is a bigger
threat to Alec Guinness(European values) in some way than the Japanese are. Japanese may challenge the British Empire, but both civilizations believe in hierarchy and form(and proper place for each individual). William Holden represents the free, self-centered, and self-willed individual; he’s like the Charlton Heston character in POTA.
Anyway, let’s discuss POTA, its meaning, and its significance. In retrospect, it seems less impressive today as we’ve been bombarded with out-of-this-world special effects and CGI for the past 30 yrs.
Film tricks and techniques have advanced far beyond anything even
dreamt possible back in 1968. But, this doesn’t necessarily make POTA worse; the original POTA relied more on story, character, and script than most of today’s sci-fi or action movies which are all about speed, explosions, and such.
And, there was a certain advantage in the fact that the director Franklin Schaffner was a workman-like director than an auteur. While I have no doubt that Orson Welles or Stanley Kubrick could have made a more interesting version of POTA, an unpretentious skilled director is preferable to some pain-in-the-ass auteur wanna-be who turns promising material into self-deluded aesthetic gimcrackery–just think of the crimes of Ken Russell or Tim Burton. Schaffner did no more and no less than what he was hired to do. POTA is not great filmmaking but is
solid filmmaking. And, because Schaffner’s directorship doesn’t intrude upon other aspects of the movie and hog all the attention, we can enjoy all of POTA’s parts.
POTA is less sci-fi than satire. Though a film can have trappings of both satire and sci-fi, there’s a key difference. Satire uses technological or scientific themes to make a point about humanity whereas conventional science fiction is primarily interested in the speculative technology itself. Considered from a scientific angle,
POTA makes no sense and has no plausibility whatsoever. But, it works wonderfully as satire, as a consideration of our world through a
warped looking glass. POTA is, after all, not about the future or the dangers/promises of science/technology but about us here and now. It should be regarded as something like Animal Farm, and indeed could
well have been called Ape House. The pigs in Orwell’s story represented communists in the Soviet Union, and the apes in POTA are
us today(or at least in the 60s). So, people who complain about POTA’s bad science are nincompoops.
So, what does POTA say about us, humanity, or whatever? First, we have to distinguish the book from the novel. The original novel was in
French and the iconic image at the end of the film is not the Statue
of Liberty but the Eiffel Tower. From the French or Old European perspective, Planet of the Apes is an allegory about Empire and domination. For two centuries, white Europeans had dominated the
world; they had been the masters where ever they went. But, when the book was written, much had changed. The shoe was on the other foot.
So, the novel could be interpreted as white man experiencing
imperialist domination–getting a taste of his own medicine–, or as a white man’s fear(and fascination) of a new order where non-whites rule the world. 10 yrs prior to the book’s release French got whupped by monkey-like Vietnamese in Dien Bien Phu, and at the time of its
release French were about to lose in Algeria. So, the themes of POTA
the novel is much like the themes in Bridge on the River Kwai. It’s about role reversal of the races. The apes could represent the
Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabs, Africans, Muslims, etc. Interestingly enough, the apes of the novel are far more advanced than those in the movie(perhaps for budget reasons?). Apes in the novel
have even mastered space travel; indeed, the story begins with two astronaut apes out in space.
The movie is considerably different. The first movie isn’t really about role reversal of the races. The element of race enters in parts
2, 4, and 5(Beneath the Planet of the Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, and Battle of the Planet of the Apes; Escape of the Planet
of the Apes is like the second half of the novel except that the apes are celebrities on Earth instead of the human being a celebrity on the Ape Planet).
The first Planet of the Apes movie is essentially a liberal film on
the dangers of conservatism and reaction. There is no indication that the apes are supposed to be ‘niggers’, little suggestion of ‘this is
what it would be like if the blacks took over.’ Actually, Tim Burton’s
remake was much along those lines as the apes in that movie did act black-ish and their world was ugabuga jungle-ish. The ape world in the original POTA is actually very orderly, and the apes are very
civilized and disciplined, not ugabuga-ish. To be sure, one could
argue that the three different species of apes in the movie represent different races, with chimpanzees representing the rational Western whites, orangutans representing the spiritual Eastern Orientals, and gorillas representing the big and powerful Negroes. But, maybe not. Though the gorillas in the movie are the blackest and limited to
menial jobs or military duties, they don’t seem to be jive-ass-ish in any way. Indeed, they seem to be very much the law-and-order types, kinda like the Roman or Prussian guards. They could be seen as the fascist defenders of the Ape Order. The orangutans are oriental-ish in some way but also could be seen as representing Western spiritual conservatism as well. They would be the Robert Borks, C. S. Lewises,
the Jerry Falwells, or the Thomas Flemings of our society. They are distrustful of ideas or change that might upset the sacred order of things. They are like Moses in 10 Commandments holding up the
tabernacle and saying, ‘you better believe this stuff or get your ass whupped’.
The chimpanzees can be seen as rationalists, scientists, progressives, liberals, or do-gooders. One may say it was bigoted for the movie
makers to designate spiritual and cultural qualities according to
racial or species differences among the apes, but it has to be seen as satire–just like different animals in Animal Farm represent different social groups and their abilities.
Of course, it could be argued that original POTA the movie is indeed about race because, even though the apes don’t represent blacks-on- top, Heston plays a kind of a ‘white-nigger-ish’ role. He’s treated as
less-than-human(or less-than-ape as the case may be), and the ape- supremacist orangutans insist on the inferiority of humans. So, the white audience might have wondered, ‘how would it have been like if we were treated like blacks–shipped across the oceans and sold as slaves?). But, POTA works as a better critique of how humans treat animals than how humans treat humans of other races. After all, humans in POTA are not captured to be used as slaves or second class
citizens. They are either killed right away as pests, locked up in
zoos, or used for biological research. Indeed, before Taylor came
along and demonstrated his superior intelligence, even the ‘progressive’ chimps felt no hesitation about using humans for all sorts of scientific–presumably grisly–experiments. And indeed, this is
how we treat animals today. As long as we believe that dogs, pigs,
apes, and monkeys are less intelligent than us, we think it’s okay to kill them by the bushel for food or experimentation. Despite PETA,
most of us treat animals like in POTA.
Anyway, the main moral conflict in POTA is between the liberal, progressive, and rational chimps and the conservative, reactionary,
and religious orangutans. Gorillas don’t enter into the equation until Beneath the Planet of Apes where they start acting kinda ugabuga-ish (black-ish) or nazi-esque, or a bit of both. The chimps are like Clarence Darrow and orangutans are like William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey-Ass Trial. Chimps are for open-mindedness, rational research, and factual understanding. The orangutans are for moral
order even if society must rely on the Noble Lie. Because we humans identify with Charlton Heston as Taylor, we cheer for the chimps and howl at the Orangutans. But, what makes POTA interesting is that
Taylor isn’t really a saint. Though not an evil person, he is brash, arrogant, swaggering, and self-centered. Indeed, it doesn’t seem to bother him that he left his family and friends behind for his space trip. He’s always searching for the New, the Undiscovered Territory, for the Next Adventure. He’s All-American but not necessarily in the best way. He has a heroic pioneering spirit but also a steely heart. And, we are not really sure if he’s searching for new lands for the sake of humanity or running from humanity(in which case he got his ultimate wish). He’s libertarian. Taylor is restless, like Odysseus. The difference is Odysseus, for all his wanderlust, wanted to go back
to wife and sonny boy. Taylor just seems to want to travel to new
worlds forever and ever(like some men in America in the 19th century just wanted to keep going Westward instead of settling and building).
He doesn’t seem to have much feeling for man or nation. He laughs when one of his mates plants a miniature US flag in the soil of the ‘new’ planet. And, when Taylor comes upon primitive human folks, he looks forward to ruling over them. Taylor is like a futuristic cowboy Nietzschean.
He becomes a victim of the apes, but he’s not a saint by any measure. We identify with him because he’s human like us and because he’s Charlton Heston(tall, handsome movie star). We sympathize with him because he’s brutalized by the apes. But, Taylor is the kind of person who would not hesitate to shoot animals for food or for sport. He’s not a man of great conscience. One could say he’s even a narcissist. And, this is what makes the film more interesting than if Taylor had been merely a good guy victim(like Mark Wahlberg in Burton’s remake). He’s kinda like a bad guy victim. The chimps sympathize with him out of pity and decency, but would Taylor have cared if the shoe had been other foot?
So, even though POTA is essentially a liberal film, it has enough ambiguity and irony to be auto-subversive. At the end, we can’t help but agree, to some extent, that maybe the orangutan is partly right
and not the complete villain he seemed earlier. Dr. Zaius the
orangutan is a virulent anti-humanite, but what if what Zaius says
about humans is true? What if there is something about humans or something in human nature which predisposes man to war, mayhem, and self-destruction(and making films like Jeanne Dielmann)? This is
where the relative technological underdevelopment of ape society in
the movie as opposed to advanced ape world in the book becomes significant. In the books, apes are technological masters who rule
Earth and space, but the movie has a kind of environmental message.
The apes, though civilized, seem to live in a certain harmony with nature. They have houses, towns, places of worship, agriculture, ride horses, and have guns, but they don’t seem to be dominant over Earth like we humans are today. It’s as though the apes still in their Garden of Eden; they have not eaten the forbidden banana. Indeed, primitive humans seem a bigger threat to the natural order than the apes. Though the apes first appear goonish and horrifying as they
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 491 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 81:54:46 |
| Calls: | 9,679 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,722 |
| Messages: | 6,173,292 |
| Posted today: | 3 |